Thursday, October 6, 2011

1. "Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality ...."The heyday of European fascism was the period between the end of World War I and the end of World War II. During this time there were a great many fascists in Europe. Tens of millions of them, in fact. The most well known fascist movements were in Germany, Italy and Spain, but there were also large home-grown fascist parties in other countries, especially Austria, Romania and Bulgaria, and smaller fascist groups and grouplets in every European state and also in the U.S., Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. An excellent overview of fascism as a mass, popular movement in Europe is Michael Mann's book Fascists, pictured to the right.

Ironically (perhaps), one of the best ways of gauging the numerical strength of fascist organizations is by their electoral performance. For example, in the German federal election of 1924 the Nazis received 2 million votes. In 1930 that shot up to 6.5 million, and in 1933 over 17 million Germans voted for the Nazis (that was 43.9% of the total vote, almost as high a percentage as John McCain received in 2008).

The United States was home to a very successful and politically influential fascist group during the interwar period: the Ku Klux Klan. During the 20s the Klan wielded tremendous political power in a number of states, including states well outside "the south" like Indiana and Arizona. At its height, the Klan had over three million paid members, and claimed to control half of all the state legislatures in the US. (Here is a link to a long essay on the Klan that delves into the question of identifying the KKK as "fascist". The essay is by John McClymer, Lucia Knoles, and Arnold Pulda, and it draws heavily on the book Anatomy of Fascism by Robert Paxton.)

When the time and place was right, being a fascist was something that people were positively proud of or at least not ashamed of. Out-in-the-open fascists often later looked for ways to cover their tracks and make excuses, but by then it was in many cases too late. For example, everyone knows about the Nazi sympathies of Henry Ford (who was given a fucking medal by the Nazis). Somehow the Klan managed to remain respectable, after a fashion, longer than many other fascist groups. For example the late Robert Byrd said in his autobiography that the main reason he got involved in the Klan in 1946 (after European fascism had been thoroughly defeated and discredited) was in order to help his political career in West Virginia!

After WWII, European fascism had definitely lost it's luster (although as noted above, America's own unique contribution to fascism, the KKK, was a somewhat different story). It quickly became an increasingly popular past-time to accuse anyone you disagreed with, or simply didn't like, of having been a secret Nazi, or of having secretly harbored fascistic "sympathies". Britain was well ahead of the curve on this, to the extent that fascist-baiting had become so ubiquitous there that George Orwell could say already in 1944 (in his essay "What is Fascism?"):

[I]f you examine the press you will find that there is almost no set of people — certainly no political party or organized body of any kind — which has not been denounced as Fascist during the past ten years. Here I am not speaking of the verbal use of the term ‘Fascist’. I am speaking of what I have seen in print. I have seen the words ‘Fascist in sympathy’, or ‘of Fascist tendency’, or just plain ‘Fascist’, applied in all seriousness to the following bodies of people:

Conservatives: All Conservatives, appeasers or anti-appeasers, are held to be subjectively pro-Fascist. British rule in India and the Colonies is held to be indistinguishable from Nazism. Organizations of what one might call a patriotic and traditional type are labelled crypto-Fascist or ‘Fascist-minded’. Examples are the Boy Scouts, the Metropolitan Police, M.I.5, the British Legion. Key phrase: ‘The public schools are breeding-grounds of Fascism’.

Socialists: Defenders of old-style capitalism (example, Sir Ernest Benn) maintain that Socialism and Fascism are the same thing. Some Catholic journalists maintain that Socialists have been the principal collaborators in the Nazi-occupied countries. The same accusation is made from a different angle by the Communist party during its ultra-Left phases. In the period 1930-35 the Daily Worker habitually referred to the Labour Party as the Labour Fascists. This is echoed by other Left extremists such as Anarchists. Some Indian Nationalists consider the British trade unions to be Fascist organizations.

Communists: A considerable school of thought (examples, Rauschning, Peter Drucker, James Burnham, F. A. Voigt) refuses to recognize a difference between the Nazi and Soviet régimes, and holds that all Fascists and Communists are aiming at approximately the same thing and are even to some extent the same people. Leaders in The Times (pre-war) have referred to the U.S.S.R. as a ‘Fascist country’. Again from a different angle this is echoed by Anarchists and Trotskyists.

Trotskyists: Communists charge the Trotskyists proper, i.e. Trotsky's own organization, with being a crypto-Fascist organization in Nazi pay. This was widely believed on the Left during the Popular Front period. In their ultra-Right phases the Communists tend to apply the same accusation to all factions to the Left of themselves, e.g. Common Wealth or the I.L.P.

Catholics: Outside its own ranks, the Catholic Church is almost universally regarded as pro-Fascist, both objectively and subjectively;

War resisters: Pacifists and others who are anti-war are frequently accused not only of making things easier for the Axis, but of becoming tinged with pro-Fascist feeling.

Supporters of the war: War resisters usually base their case on the claim that British imperialism is worse than Nazism, and tend to apply the term ‘Fascist’ to anyone who wishes for a military victory. The supporters of the People's Convention came near to claiming that willingness to resist a Nazi invasion was a sign of Fascist sympathies. The Home Guard was denounced as a Fascist organization as soon as it appeared. In addition, the whole of the Left tends to equate militarism with Fascism. Politically conscious private soldiers nearly always refer to their officers as ‘Fascist-minded’ or ‘natural Fascists’. Battle-schools, spit and polish, saluting of officers are all considered conducive to Fascism. Before the war, joining the Territorials was regarded as a sign of Fascist tendencies. Conscription and a professional army are both denounced as Fascist phenomena.

Nationalists: Nationalism is universally regarded as inherently Fascist, but this is held only to apply to such national movements as the speaker happens to disapprove of. Arab nationalism, Polish nationalism, Finnish nationalism, the Indian Congress Party, the Muslim League, Zionism, and the I.R.A. are all described as Fascist but not by the same people.

It will be seen that, as used, the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else.

Yet underneath all this mess there does lie a kind of buried meaning. To begin with, it is clear that there are very great differences, some of them easy to point out and not easy to explain away, between the régimes called Fascist and those called democratic. Secondly, if ‘Fascist’ means ‘in sympathy with Hitler’, some of the accusations I have listed above are obviously very much more justified than others. Thirdly, even the people who recklessly fling the word ‘Fascist’ in every direction attach at any rate an emotional significance to it. By ‘Fascism’ they mean, roughly speaking, something cruel, unscrupulous, arrogant, obscurantist, anti-liberal and anti-working-class. Except for the relatively small number of Fascist sympathizers, almost any English person would accept ‘bully’ as a synonym for ‘Fascist’. That is about as near to a definition as this much-abused word has come.

Orwell ended that essay by expressing the hope that in the future cooler heads would prevail making it possible to define fascism objectively as "an economic and political system" rather than as "a swearword". But if anything the situation is significantly worse in the 21st century than it was in 1944!

2. What did you do during the war, Herr Doktor Professor?There is no evidence that Carl Gustav Jung was ever one of those tens of millions of fascists in Europe. Nor is there any evidence that he ever expressed support, admiration or "sympathy" for Nazism or fascism. Nor is there is any evidence that Jung ever "collaborated" in any way with fascism or Nazism.

Jung was Swiss, and there were fascists and fascist groups in Switzerland throughout the interwar period. Once the Nazis were in power in Germany, there were even groups that wanted Switzerland to become part of the Third Reich. The largest and most important fascist group in Switzerland was the National Front, which advocated radical changes to the Swiss Constitution along fascist lines. A movement was initiated by the National Front, and also supported by the Young Catholic Conservatives, that succeeded in obtaining enough signatures to put their proposed Constitutional changes to a national vote (the National Front obtained 2/3 of the required signatures, while the Young Catholic Conservatives provided the rest). When the referendum took place in September of 1935 the pro-fascist side received over 25% of the total, demonstrating that while the movement was in the minority, it had a significant base of support among the Swiss population, and it is almost certain that the support was highest among German speaking Swiss, like Jung. However, there is not the slightest indication that Jung had anything whatsoever to do with the National Front, their referendum campaign, or any other fascist groups or activities in Switzerland. [For more on the National Front referendum see Ellen Lovell Evans' The Cross and the Ballot: Catholic political parties in Germany, Switzerland, Austria, Belgium and the Netherlands, 1785-1985, pp. 162-164.]

So what does it mean when one finds people making the claim that Jung was a Nazi, or at least a Nazi supporter, sympathizer, or collaborator? Well, it does not mean that someone has discovered secret pro-Nazi writings by Jung, or that they have discovered his secret membership in some underground Swiss Nazi group, or that they have discovered Jung's secret activities working for the Nazis or their Swiss allies.

What people mean when they say that Jung was a Nazi supporter is that they have a subjective impression that Jung's ideas have something vaguely "Nazi" about them. The basic idea is that Jung was, you know, all into völkisch-ness and mythology and folklore and Wotan and Occultism and so forth, and, well, that's all Nazi stuff. I mean, it is, right? And, like, he was German, you know? (Or Swiss-German, anyway.) Oh, and his politics were, drum roll please, conservative.

"When the Nazis came to power in 1933, brandishing swastikas and advocating neopaganism, it seemed like an instance of preestablished harmony: Jung thought he was witnessing his own theories come to life. Since the break with Freud, Jung had been convinced of the phylogenetic superiority of Aryan archetypes. Having rejected reason as an inferior mode of cognition, he found the National Socialists' recourse to Aryan symbols and myths highly congenial. Hitler, he was convinced, was Wotan reincarnated, a modern-day shaman. From his safe haven in Switzerland, Jung jumped aboard the Nazi bandwagon with alacrity." [p. 17]

Wolin cannot produce a single quote in which Jung himself in his own words says that he found National Socialism to be "highly congenial." And as already mentioned, there was indeed an openly organized and publicly functioning "Nazi bandwagon" in Switzerland, and there is no evidence that Jung, with or without "alacrity", was on it or even cheering from the sidelines. As far as "witnessing his own theories come to life", Jung did believe that "his own theories" helped to explain the advent of National Socialism, but that in no way meant that he supported or was sympathetic to National Socialism. In fact, when Jung did "psycho-analyze" Hitler and the Nazis he concluded that Nazi Germany was on a "course toward perdition" (see his 1936 essay Wotan, excerpted below), and that Adolf Hitler reminded him of some of his psychotic patients (see Gary Lachman's Jung the Mystic, p. 174).

In the above excerpt, Richard Wolin also states that "Since the break with Freud, Jung had been convinced of the phylogenetic superiority of Aryan archetypes." But in 1908 Sigmund Freud had famously stated that he felt more intellectually compatible with Karl Abraham than with Carl Jung, because Abraham was a Jew and, therefore, Freud and Abraham shared a closer "racial kinship" (Rassenverwandtschaft), whereas the situation was quite different with Jung whom Freud described as "a Christian and a pastor's son," and because of that Jung "finds his way to me only against great inner resistances." [See Michael Vannoy Adams' The multicultural imagination: race, color, and the unconscious pp. 41-43]

Not only did Freud himself believe in "racial differences" in the psychological make-up of Jews and Christians, the whole field of "scientific racism", which was solidly ensconced in mainstream western intellectual culture, was based first and foremost on a racist psychological hypothesis: the superior intelligence of whites. But the issue is even broader than that. Those who have expressed the opinion that there are decided racial differences in intelligence include Voltaire, David Hume, Immanuel Kant, Carl Linneaus, and T.H. Huxley. IQ test results in the early 20th century were claimed to demonstrate objective, measurable correspondences between "race" and intelligence. Therefore, the claim by Wolin that there was some special alignment between Nazi racial theories and Jung's psychology (any more so than the theories of other psychologists of the time) is a mind-boggling example of intellectual malfeasance, or possibly just symptomatic of the depth of Wolin's ignorance.

3. Where do ideas come from?Lets turn to another example of the essentialist argument that Jung's thinking was intrinsically Nazi-istical. This example is notable for the refreshingly explicit way in which the author articulates his claim. In a short essay on Jung and Antisemitism (Originally published in The Jewish Quarterly Spring 1994) Andrew Samuels (University of Essex) first states that he is not interested in what he calls "psychobiology". He then explains what he is interested in:

"What I do ask is whether there is something in the deep, fundamental structure of Jung's thought, in its heart or essence, that made it inevitable that he would develop a kind of antisemitism. When Jung writes about the Jews and Jewish psychology, is there something in his whole attitude, his 'take,' to use the colloquialism, that just had to lead to antisemitism? Is there something to worry about?

"My brief answer, in contradistinction to that of many other leading Jungian analysts, is 'yes' and my hope is that by exploring the matter as deeply as we can, a form of reparation will ensue. I believe that many strengths and subtleties of analytical psychology are being lost - not just because of the alleged Nazi collaboration and antisemitism, but also because of the evident inability of many Jungians to react to such charges in an intelligent, humane way. This permits the Freudian establishment, and the rest of the civilized world, to continue to ignore the pioneering nature of Jung's contributions, and hence the work of post-Jungian analytical psychologists."

At that point in the paper, Samuels proceeds to completely ignore Jung for the moment while launching into his own potted redaction of the history of "nationalism", and in particular the historical antecedents of Hitler's ideas about "race" and "nation". In the course of this, Samuels makes a very interesting statement that is quite true: "Hitler regarded all history as consisting of struggles between competing nations for living space and, eventually, for world domination." Of course, and as Samuels is quick to point out, Hitler didn't get all worked up over "struggles between competing nations" as an abstract notion. Indeed, Hitler's mind was focused, to the exclusion of all else, on the struggle between two nations in particular: the Aryans and the Jews.

Having established that what he is getting at is the intellectual pedigree of the specific idea of a life-and-death struggle between Aryans and Jews, Samuels is now ready to inject the following: "Jung, too, was interested in the idea of the nation." But Samuels is in such a hurry to shout "Aha!" and impugn Jung with this insinuation, that he appears to be completely unaware that it is a well established historical fact that not only did Hitler and the Nazis not get their "idea of the nation" from Jung, but the sources of Nazi ideology concerning "race" and "nation" are well known and well documented and they have nothing whatsoever to do with Jung.

Anyone who has ever bothered to look into the matter even slightly knows precisely where Hitler and the Nazis did get their idea of a global-historical winner-take-all struggle between Jews and Germans. Hitler's conception of nation and race (and Aryans and Jews in particular) were taken bodily from an ideology already spelled out very clearly and explicitly in manifesto form when young Adolf was still a schoolboy. The manifesto in question was Houston Stewart Chamberlain's Foundations of the Nineteenth Century, first published in the year 1900. The Nazi intellectual debt to Chamberlain was loudly, publicly, and frequently proclaimed.

Adolf Hitler was honored and delighted to personally meet his intellectual hero in 1924, just one month before the Beer Hall Putsch. As a result of the failure of the Putsch, Adolf Hitler found himself with some time on his hands. As he cooled his heels in a Berlin jail cell, the future Fuhrer began work on Mein Kampf, a work in which he singles out Houston Stewart Chamberlain and praises him by name. Chamberlain turned 70 in 1925 (the same year that the first volume of Mein Kampf was published), and on the occasion of his birthday the official Nazi press hailed his Foundations as "the gospel of the Nazi movement." That editorial was written by Alfred Rosenberg, the race-theorist-in-chief of the National Socialist movement. Rosenberg's own racist masterwork, Myth of the Twentieth Century, was explicitly written as a sequel to Chamberlain's Foundations of the Nineteenth Century. Rosenberg's paean to Chamberlain and his ideas was the second best-selling book in the Third Reich, only beat out by Mein Kampf. When Chamberlain died in 1927, Hitler personally attended the funeral.

The three key texts of the racist ideology of Nazism are Chamberlain's Foundations, Hitler's Mein Kampf, and Ronseberg's Myth. (For more on Rosenberg and Chamberlain, and also Chamberlain's life-long friend, leading Protestant theologian Adolf von Harnack, see this previous post: Rosenberg, Chamberlain, Harnack.) None of these works has the slightest relationship to the ideas of Carl Gustav Jung. As for Jung, he appears to have taken little, if any, interest in the books that formed the basis for Nazi racial theory. Chamberlain's Foundations, it must be emphasized, was a world-wide best seller, and was especially popular in Germany and German speaking areas of Europe (such as the German speaking parts of Switzerland). So far as I know, the only mention that Jung ever makes of Chamberlain is in the famous 1936 essay Wotan, in which his reference to Chamberlain as "a symptom which arouses suspicion" is hardly flattering:

"For the sake of better understanding and to avoid prejudice, we could of course dispense with the name 'Wotan' and speak instead of the furor teutonicus. But we should only be saying the same thing and not as well, for the furor in this case is a mere psychologizing of Wotan and tells us no more than that the Germans are in a state of "fury." We thus lose sight of the most peculiar feature of this whole phenomenon, namely, the dramatic aspect of the Ergreifer (the one who possesses) and the Ergriffener (the one who is possessed). The impressive thing about the German phenomenon is that one man, who is obviously 'possessed,' has infected a whole nation to such an extent that everything is set in motion and has started rolling on its course towards perdition.

"It seems to me that Wotan hits the mark as an hypothesis. Apparently he really was only asleep in the Kyffhauser mountain until the ravens called him and announced the break of day. He is a fundamental attribute of the German psyche, an irrational psychic factor which acts on the high pressure of civilization like a cyclone and blows it away. Despite their crankiness, the Wotan-worshippers seem to have judged things more correctly than the worshippers of reason. Apparently everyone had forgotten that Wotan is a Germanic datum of first importance, the truest expression and unsurpassed personification of a fundamental quality that is particularly characteristic of the Germans. Houston Stewart Chamberlain is a symptom which arouses suspicion that other veiled gods may be sleeping elsewhere. The emphasis on the Germanic race -- commonly called 'Aryan' -- the Germanic heritage, blood and soil, the Wagalaweia songs, the ride of the Valkyries, Jesus as a blond and blue-eyed hero, the Greek mother of St. Paul, the devil as an international Alberich in Jewish or Masonic guise, the Nordic aurora borealis as the light of civilization, the inferior Mediterranean races -- all this is the indispensable scenery for the drama that is taking place and at the bottom they all mean the same thing: a god has taken possession of the Germans and their house is filled with a 'mighty rushing wind.' It was soon after Hitler seized power, if I am not mistaken, that a cartoon appeared in PUNCH of a raving berserker tearing himself free from his bonds. A hurricane has broken loose in Germany while we still believe it is fine weather.

"Things are comparatively quiet in Switzerland, though occasionally there is a puff of wind from the north or south. Sometimes it has a slightly ominous sound, sometimes it whispers so harmlessly or even idealistically that no one is alarmed. 'Let the sleeping dogs lie' -- we manage to get along pretty well with this proverbial wisdom. It is sometimes said that the Swiss are singularly averse to making a problem of themselves. I must rebut this accusation: the Swiss do have their problems, but they would not admit it for anything in the world, even though they see which way the wind is blowing. We thus pay our tribute to the time of storm and stress in Germany, but we never mention it, and this enables us to feel vastly superior."

A great deal has been made of Jung's Wotan, and it is often seized upon by those who wish to perpetuate the "Jung-was-a-Nazi/the-Nazis-were-Jungians" narrative. But if one actually reads the essay for oneself (link, again) one finds Jung describing Nationalist Socialist Germany as "rolling on its course toward perdition", and Jung is obviously glad to be at a safe distance in Switzerland!

In those books, by the way, one does find references to EdgarJung, personal secretary to vice-chancellor Franz von Papen, and also to the Jungdeutschland-Bund, the umbrella organization for all Nazi youth groups, including the Hitler-Jugend of which the future Pope Ratzinger was a member. But Carl Gustav Jung? Not so much. Although the last author, Griffin, does, in fact, make use of Jung's ideas in his own analysis of fascism, which is quite reasonable since Jung was a pioneer in the study of "mass psychology".

This list of authors and books given above is offered as a resource for anyone genuinely interested in understanding the phenomena of fascism and Nazism, as opposed to those who cynically view the atrocities that occurred in Europe between 1933 and 1945 as nothing more than a convenient and highly effective club for beating those whose ideas they dislike over the head.

The bottom line is that those who believe that they perceive some essential commonality between Jungian psychology and fascism are inevitably people who understand neither, and, moreover, who have made no effort whatsoever to understand either. Either that, or they have made the effort but the task is simply beyond their limited capacities.

11 comments:

Nice. I got through the first part this morning, and I'll go for the second part this afternoon.

You know, the Catholic Church really DID go out of its way at one point in time to give the impression of being fascist.

Pope Pius IX condemned basically EVERYTHING that democracy stood for - particularly in his Syllabus of Errors - including democracy freedom of the press, freedom of religion, freedom of conscience, etc. - and in 1899 condemned "Americanism"...

Them of course, in the inter-war period that you discuss here, Pius XI and XII signed pacts with Hitler, Mussolini, etc.

I suppose that you can pull out facts that make ANY group look fascist, but as far as evidence goes, pre-Vatican II Catholicism makes a great argument for itself as fascist.

Hi,The catholic church didn't exactly cover itself with glory but it wasn't by any means the only organisation to make a pact with Hitler: many european countries did the same thing in the period immediately after Hitler gained power, including the UK. It was a method of forestalling any potential violence, guaranteeing trade, sovereignty etc. The Pope may have condemned democracy, but back then democracy was often viewed sceptically as leading to weakened governments unable to take bold, decisive action in any direction.

So, in short, it's unfair to highlight the catholics out of context in this way.

You are absolutely correct in that there is plenty of blame to go around. Very few people clearly saw who and what the Nazis were, and even fewer had any idea of what to do about it. One of the few who did, in my opinion, was Churchill, who was himself very politically conservative and a racist to boot.

My intention is not to single out Catholics, per se. Rather, I am more interested in focusing attention on Christianity in general, inclusive of Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox. They all laid the foundations for the modern scourges of anti-semitism and racism.

And if one had to pick one particular flavor of Christianity for special mention it would be Protestantism. Protestantism was directly culpable in the slave system in the United States, and in its bastard children, Segregation and Jim Crow. Protestantism was the religion most closely aligned with Nazism. And Protestantism is also closely associated with Apartheid in South Africa.

I guess dimwoo might have been directing his/her comment more at you than at me?

Even though I have a preference for dumping on Protestants, there is also plenty of justification for linking the Catholics with fascism. In fact, fascism is essentially a 20th century mutation of the restorationist political movement that arose during the 19th century. These were the people who gave us the words "reactionary" and "conservative" in the first place. Basically they wanted to undo the Enlightenment (and most especially the French Revolution) and return to the good old days of theocracy.

So you won't get any argument from me on the points you make. All that and more is true of the eveil Catholic/fascist nexus.

You completely miss the point, dimwoo. It is not the case that no one was to blame for Nazism. However, it is the case that Carl Jung was not to blame in any way, while Christianity in general, and the Catholic Church in particular, bear a significant load of guilt. Many Christians, including Catholics, acknowledge this.

At the risk of repeating myself: the whole point of investigating the accusations made against Jung is to determine the truth. If there were any actual evidence indicating that Jung was supportive of Nazism, that he was anti-semitic, or, worse, that his psychological theories helped to prepare the way for the Third Reich, then I would be forced to acknowledge that Jung bears some responsibility.

Unlike Jung, though, in the case of the Catholic Church it is simply a matter of historical fact that the Catholic Church was (1) supportive of Nazism, (2) anti-Semitic, and (3) that the Church helped to prepare the way for the Third Reich and even the Holocaust. This is not just my own personal opinion, but something that many prominent scholars agree on.

"Unlike Jung, though, in the case of the Catholic Church it is simply a matter of historical fact that the Catholic Church was (1) supportive of Nazism, (2) anti-Semitic, and (3) that the Church helped to prepare the way for the Third Reich and even the Holocaust. This is not just my own personal opinion, but something that many prominent scholars agree on."

Well of course I disagree. And you've not presented any evidence to support this claim in your blog entry. I would argue that the Nazis/Catholic allegation is a perfect example of what you claim Jung's reputation has suffered: the unwarranted and spurious cry of "fascism", as Orwell has described it. I would also argue that the accusations against the catholic church are not historical fact and not supported by legions of eminent scholars, but amount to little more than anti-catholic smears and gossip.

The culpability of Christianity in the Third Reich has been discussed by me elsewhere in this blog, but I have tried to avoid that as much as possible here, because Jung's case does not primarily rest on this point.

The close connection between Christianity and racism is discussed by George M. Fredrickson in his "Race: A Short History" (published in 2003), the first chapter of which is titled "Religion and the Invention of Race."

The more specific argument that centuries of Christian anti-Semitism paved the way for the Holocaust is made by Christopher Browning in "The Origins of the Final Solution: The Evolution of Nazi Jewish Policy", in the opening chapter of that book which is titled "Background".

The even more specific issue of the role of Christianity in Nazism and the Third Reich is the subject of Richard Steigmann-Gall's 2003 book "Holy Reich: Nazi Conceptions of Christianity."

One can also look directly at the Nazis themselves. Nazi ideology is based on three main books: Houston Stewart Chamberlain's "Foundations of the 19th Century", Alfred Rosenberg's "Myth of the 20th Century", and, of course, Adolf Hitler's "Mein Kampf". All three books are explicit and enthusiastic in their promotion of the Christian religion.

dimwoo: "It was catholicism's great fear of Communism that led them to embrace right-wingers such as Hitler, Franco etc. This was not an unfounded fear."

Sorry I didn't see that comment earlier. I consider that particular point to be valid, as far as it goes. And it goes pretty far. In particular, it raises the issue of the moral equivalence of Nazism and Communism. If anything, the Soviet Regime proved to be worse than the Nazis, and Communism itself is still, sadly, with us, especially in its Maoist mutant version. This means that liberals and leftists who have either supported, or in some sense been apologists for, the Soviet Union are morally no better than rightists who played footsie with the Nazis.

But the fact is that not all rightists played footsie with the Nazis. Jung, for example, was always quite conservative in his political social views, but he was never sympathetic to National Socialism or fascism.

Also, the Church did not just oppose Communism. The Church opposed democracy, republicanism, secularism, individual liberty (especially freedom of conscience and freedom of speech), human equality (especially women's equality), and so forth.

Apuleius Platonicus: "This means that liberals and leftists who have either supported, or in some sense been apologists for, the Soviet Union are morally no better than rightists who played footsie with the Nazis."

Agreed. But the fact that large numbers of academics and intellectuals on the left enthusiastically supported Soviet communism - one of the most murderous regime's the world has ever seen - through to the 1970s and beyond, is hardly ever mentioned.

Apuleius Platonicus: "But the fact is that not all rightists played footsie with the Nazis."

Or all catholics, protestants, pagans, Theosophists or candlestick makers.

Apuleius Platonicus: "Also, the Church did not just oppose Communism. The Church opposed democracy, republicanism, secularism, individual liberty (especially freedom of conscience and freedom of speech), human equality (especially women's equality), and so forth."

This is a very vague list of very modern values, broad of sweep but small on details. You could say the same of almost everyone who has ever lived up to about a hundred years ago - but that would be a pointless exercise in self-righteousness and historical anachronism.

"Trials of the Moon: Reopening the Case for Historical Witchcraft" by Ben Whitmore

For more information about Ben Whitmore's book on the historical roots of modern Paganism, click the book cover.

Freedom of Expression: Secular Theocracy Versus Liberal Democracy

To read this book by Sita Ram Goel, and see other books available from Voice of Dharma Publishers, click on the image above.

About the "egregores" welcome banner

FAR LEFT: "Goddess of Freedom", sculpture by Thomas Crawford, placed atop the US Capitol in 1863. CENTER: from the painting "Bacchante", by William Adolphe Bouguereau, 1894. FAR RIGHT: "The Tyrannicdes", Roman copies of the original sculpture by Antenor from Athens (ca. 408 BC), commemorating Harmodius and Aristogeiton. ALSO shown are a practitioner of African Traditional Religion, Hypatia and her father Theon, the Saxon Heathen war leader Widukind, Crazy Horse, Sri Aurobindo and Alexandra David-Neel.

"The part of life we really live is small."

Seneca: De Brevitate VitaeThe majority of mortals, Paulinus, complain bitterly of the spitefulness of Nature, because we are born for a brief span of life, because even this space that has been granted to us rushes by so speedily and so swiftly that all save a very few find life at an end just when they are getting ready to live. Nor is it merely the common herd and the unthinking crowd that bemoan what is, as men deem it, an universal ill; the same feeling has called forth complaint also from men who were famous. It was this that made the greatest of physicians exclaim that "life is short, art is long;" it was this that led Aristotle, while expostulating with Nature, to enter an indictment most unbecoming to a wise man - that, in point of age, she has shown such favour to animals that they drag out five or ten lifetimes, but that a much shorter limit is fixed for man, though he is born for so many and such great achievements. It is not that we have a short space of time, but that we waste much of it. Life is long enough, and it has been given in sufficiently generous measure to allow the accomplishment of the very greatest things if the whole of it is well invested. But when it is squandered in luxury and carelessness, when it is devoted to no good end, forced at last by the ultimate necessity we perceive that it has passed away before we were aware that it was passing. So it is - the life we receive is not short, but we make it so, nor do we have any lack of it, but are wasteful of it. Just as great and princely wealth is scattered in a moment when it comes into the hands of a bad owner, while wealth however limited, if it is entrusted to a good guardian, increases by use, so our life is amply long for him who orders it properly.

Why do we complain of Nature? She has shown herself kindly; life, if you know how to use it, is long. But one man is possessed by an avarice that is insatiable, another by a toilsome devotion to tasks that are useless; one man is besotted with wine, another is paralyzed by sloth; one man is exhausted by an ambition that always hangs upon the decision of others, another, driven on by the greed of the trader, is led over all lands and all seas by the hope of gain; some are tormented by a passion for war and are always either bent upon inflicting danger upon others or concerned about their own; some there are who are worn out by voluntary servitude in a thankless attendance upon the great; many are kept busy either in the pursuit of other men's fortune or in complaining of their own; many, following no fixed aim, shifting and inconstant and dissatisfied, are plunged by their fickleness into plans that are ever new; some have no fixed principle by which to direct their course, but Fate takes them unawares while they loll and yawn - so surely does it happen that I cannot doubt the truth of that utterance which the greatest of poets delivered with all the seeming of an oracle:"The part of life we really live is small." For all the rest of existence is not life, but merely time. Vices beset us and surround us on every side, and they do not permit us to rise anew and lift up our eyes for the discernment of truth, but they keep us down when once they have overwhelmed us and we are chained to lust. Their victims are never allowed to return to their true selves; if ever they chance to find some release, like the waters of the deep sea which continue to heave even after the storm is past, they are tossed about, and no rest from their lusts abides. Think you that I am speaking of the wretches whose evils are admitted? Look at those whose prosperity men flock to behold; they are smothered by their blessings. To how many are riches a burden! From how many do eloquence and the daily straining to display their powers draw forth blood! How many are pale from constant pleasures! To how many does the throng of clients that crowd about them leave no freedom! In short, run through the list of all these men from the lowest to the highest - this man desires an advocate, this one answers the call, that one is on trial, that one defends him, that one gives sentence; no one asserts his claim to himself, everyone is wasted for the sake of another. Ask about the men whose names are known by heart, and you will see that these are the marks that distinguish them: A cultivates B and B cultivates C; no one is his own master. And then certain men show the most senseless indignation - they complain of the insolence of their superiors, because they were too busy to see them when they wished an audience! But can anyone have the hardihood to complain of the pride of another when he himself has no time to attend to himself? After all, no matter who you are, the great man does sometimes look toward you even if his face is insolent, he does sometimes condescend to listen to your words, he permits you to appear at his side; but you never deign to look upon yourself, to give ear to yourself. There is no reason, therefore, to count anyone in debt for such services, seeing that, when you performed them, you had no wish for another's company, but could not endure your own.Epictetus: On Freedom[Discourses IV.1]He is free who lives as he likes; who is not subject to compulsion, to restraint, or to violence; whose pursuits are unhindered, his desires successful, his aversions unincurred. Who, then, would wish to lead a wrong course of life? "No one." Who would live deceived, erring, unjust, dissolute, discontented, dejected? "No one." No wicked man, then, lives as he likes; therefore no such man is free. And who would live in sorrow, fear, envy, pity, with disappointed desires and unavailing aversions? "No one." Do we then find any of the wicked exempt from these evils? "Not one." Consequently, then, they are not free.

If some person who has been twice consul should hear this, he will forgive you, provided you add, "but you are wise, and this has no reference to you." But if you tell him the truth, that, in point of slavery, he does not necessarily differ from those who have been thrice sold, what but chastisement can you expect? "For how," he says, "am I a slave? My father was free, my mother free. Besides, I am a senator, too, and the friend of Caesar, and have been twice consul, and have myself many slaves." In the first place, most worthy sir, perhaps your father too was a slave of the same kind; and your mother, and your grandfather, and all your series of ancestors. But even were they ever so free, what is that to you? For what if they were of a generous, you of a mean spirit; they brave, and you a coward; they sober, and you dissolute?

"But what," he says, "has this to do with my being a slave? " Is it no part of slavery to act against your will, under compulsion, and lamenting? "Be it so. But who can compel me but the master of all, Caesar?" By your own confession, then, you have one master; and let not his being, as you say, master of all, give you any comfort; for then you are merely a slave in a large family. Thus the Nicopolitans, too, frequently cry out, "By the genius of Caesar we are free!"

For the present, however, if you please, we will let Caesar alone. But tell me this. Have you never been in love with any one, either of a servile or liberal condition? "Why, what has that to do with being slave or free?" Were you never commanded anything by your mistress that you did not choose? Have you never flattered your fair slave? Have you never kissed her feet? And yet if you were commanded to kiss Caesar's feet, you would think it an outrage and an excess of tyranny. What else is this than slavery? Have you never gone out by night where you did not desire? Have you never spent more than you chose? Have you not sometimes uttered your words with sighs and groans? Have you never borne to be reviled and shut out of doors? But if you are ashamed to confess your own follies, see what Thrasonides says and does; who, after having fought more battles perhaps than you, went out by night, when [his slaves Geta would not dare to go; nay, had he been compelled to do it, would have gone bewailing and lamenting the bitterness of servitude. And what says he afterwards? "A contemptible girl has enslaved me, whom no enemy ever enslaved." Wretch ! to be the slave of a girl and a contemptible girl too! Why, then, do you still call yourself free? Why do you boast your military expeditions? Then he calls for a sword, and is angry with the person who, out of kindness, denies it; and sends presents to her who hates him; and begs, and weeps, and then again is elated on every little success. But what elation? Is he raised above desire or fear?

Consider what is our idea of freedom in animals. Some keep tame lions, and feed them and even lead them about; and who will say that any such lion is free? Nay, does he not live the more slavishly the more he lives at ease? And who that had sense and reason would wish to be one of those lions? Again, how much will caged birds suffer in trying to escape? Nay, some of them starve themselves rather than undergo such a life; others are saved only with difficulty and in a pining condition; and the moment they find any opening, out they go. Such a desire have they for their natural freedom, and to be at their own disposal, and unrestrained. "And what harm can this confinement do you?" "What say you? I was born to fly where I please, to live in the open air, to sing when I please. You deprive me of all this, and then ask what harm I suffer?"

Hence we will allow those only to be free who will not endure captivity, but, so soon as they are taken, die and so escape. Thus Diogenes somewhere says that the only way to freedom is to die with ease. And he writes to the Persian king, "You can no more enslave the Athenians than you can fish." "How? Can I not get possession of them?" "If you do," said he, "they will leave you, and be gone like fish. For catch a fish, and it dies. And if the Athenians, too, die as soon as you have caught them, of what use are your warlike preparations? " This is the voice of a free man who had examined the matter in earnest, and, as it might be expected, found it all out. But if you seek it where it is not, what wonder if you never find it?

A slave wishes to be immediately set free. Think you it is because he is desirous to pay his fee [of manumission] to the officer? No, but because he fancies that, for want of acquiring his freedom, he has hitherto lived under restraint and unprosperously. "If I am once set free," he says, "it is all prosperity; I care for no one; I can speak to all as being their equal and on a level with them. I go where I will, I come when and how I will." He is at last made free, and presently having nowhere to eat he seeks whom he may flatter, with whom he may sup. He then either submits to the basest and most infamous degradation, and if he can obtain admission to some great man's table, falls into a slavery much worse than the former; or perhaps, if the ignorant fellow should grow rich, he doats upon some girl, laments, and is unhappy, and wishes for slavery again. " For what harm did it do me? Another clothed me, another shod me, another fed me, another took care of me when I was sick. It was but in a few things, by way of return, I used to serve him. But now, miserable wretch ! what do I suffer, in being a slave to many, instead of one ! Yet, if I can be promoted to equestrian rank, I shall live in the utmost prosperity and happiness." In order to obtain this, he first deservedly suffers; and as soon as he has obtained it, it is all the same again. "But then," he says, "if I do but get a military command, I shall be delivered from all my troubles." He gets a military command. He suffers as much as the vilest rogue of a slave; and, nevertheless, he asks for a second command and a third; and when he has put the finishing touch, and is made a senator, then he is a slave indeed. When he comes into the public assembly, it is then that he undergoes his finest and most splendid slavery.

[It is needful] not to be foolish, but to learn what Socrates taught, the nature of things; and not rashly to apply general principles to particulars. For the cause of all human evils is the not being able to apply general principles to special cases. But different people have different grounds of complaint; one, for instance, that he is sick. That is not the trouble; it is in his principles. Another, that he is poor; another, that he has a harsh father and mother; another, that he is not in the good graces of Caesar. This is nothing else but not understanding how to apply our principles. For who has not an idea of evil, that it is hurtful; that it is to be avoided; that it is by all means to be prudently guarded against? One principle does not contradict another, except when it comes to be applied. What, then, is this evil, --thus hurtful and to be avoided? "Not to be the friend of Caesar," says some one. He is gone; he has failed in applying his principles; he is embarrassed; he seeks what is nothing to the purpose. For if he comes to be Caesar's friend, he is still no nearer to what he sought. For what is it that every man seeks? To be secure, to be happy, to do what he pleases without restraint and without compulsion. When he becomes the friend of Caesar, then does he cease to be restrained; to be compelled? Is he secure? Is he happy? Whom shall we ask? Whom can we better credit than this very man who has been his friend? Come forth and tell us whether you sleep more quietly now than before you were the friend of Caesar. You presently hear him cry, "Leave off, for Heaven's sake! and do not insult me. You know not the miseries I suffer; there is no sleep for me; but one comes and says that Caesar is already awake; another, that he is just going out. Then follow perturbations, then cares." Well, and when did you use to sup the more pleasantly,- formerly, or now? Hear what he says about this too. When he is not invited, he is distracted; and if he is, he sups like a slave with his master, solicitous all the while not to say or do anything foolish. And what think you? Is he afraid of being whipped like a slave? No such easy penalty. No; but rather, as becomes so great a man, Caesar's friend, of losing his head. And when did you bathe the more quietly; when did you perform your exercises the more at your leisure; in short, which life would you rather wish to live, -your present, or the former? I could swear there is no one so stupid and insensible as not to deplore his miseries, in proportion as he is the more the friend of Caesar.

Since, then, neither they who are called kings nor the friends of kings live as they like, who, then, after all, is free? Seek, and you will find; for you are furnished by nature with means for discovering the truth. But if you are not able by these alone to find the consequence, hear them who have sought it. What do they say? Do you think freedom a good? "The greatest." Can any one, then, who attains the greatest good be unhappy or unsuccessful in his affairs? " No." As many, therefore, as you see unhappy, lamenting, unprosperous, -confidently pronounce them not free. " I do." Henceforth, then, we have done with buying and selling, and such like stated conditions of becoming slaves. For if these concessions hold, then, whether the unhappy man be a great or a little king, - of consular or bi-consular dignity, - he is not free. " Agreed."

Further, then, answer me this: do you think freedom to be something great and noble and valuable? "How should I not?" Is it possible, then, that he who acquires anything so great and valuable and noble should be of an abject spirit? "It is not." Whenever, then, you see any one subject to another, and flattering him contrary to his own opinion, confidently say that he too is not free; and not only when he does this for a supper, but even if it be for a government, nay, a consulship. Call those indeed little slaves who act thus for the sake of little things; and call the others, as they deserve, great slaves. "Be this, too, agreed." Well, do you think freedom to be something independent and self-determined? "How can it be otherwise?" Him, then, whom it is in the power of another to restrain or to compel, affirm confidently to be by no means free. And do not heed his grandfathers or great-grandfathers, or inquire whether he has been bought or sold; but if you hear him say from his heart and with emotion, "my master," though twelve Lictors should march before him, call him a slave. And if you should hear him say, "Wretch that I am! what do I suffer ! " call him a slave. In short, if you see him wailing, complaining, unprosperous, call him a slave, even in purple.

"Suppose, then, that he does nothing of all this." Do not yet say that he is free; but learn whether his principles are in any event liable to compulsion, to restraint, or disappointment; and if you find this to be the case, call him a slave, keeping holiday during the Saturnalia. Say that his master is abroad; that he will come presently; and you will know what he suffers. "Who will come? " Whoever has the power either of bestowing or of taking away any of the things he desires.

"Have we so many masters, then?" We have. For, prior to all such, we have the things themselves for our masters. Now they are many; and it is through these that the men who control the things inevitably become our masters too. For no one fears Caesar himself; but death, banishment, confiscation, prison, disgrace. Nor does any one love Caesar unless he be a person of great worth; but we love riches, the tribunate, the praetorship, the consulship. When we love or hate or fear such things, they who have the disposal of them must necessarily be our masters. Hence we even worship them as gods. For we consider that whoever has the disposal of the greatest advantages is a deity; and then further reason falsely, "But such a one has the control of the greatest advantages; therefore he is a deity." For if we reason falsely, the final inference must be also false.

What is it, then, that makes a man free and independent? For neither riches, nor consulship, nor the command of provinces nor of kingdoms, can make him so; but something else must be found. What is it that keeps any one from being hindered and restrained in penmanship, for instance? " The science of penmanship." In music? "The science of music." Therefore in life too, it must be the science of living. As you have heard it in general, then, consider it likewise in particulars. Is it possible for him to be unrestrained who desires any of those things that are within the power of others? "No." Can he avoid being hindered? "No." Therefore neither can he be free. Consider, then, whether we have nothing or everything in our own sole power, - or whether some things are in our own power and some in that of others. "What do you mean?" When you would have your body perfect, is it in your own power, or is it not? "It is not." When you would be healthy? "It is not." When you would be handsome? "It is not." When you would live or die? "It is not." Body then is not our own; but is subject to everything that proves stronger than itself. "Agreed." Well; is it in your own power to have an estate when you please, and such a one as you please? "No." Slaves? "No." Clothes? "No." A house? "No." Horses? " Indeed, none of these." Well, if you desire ever so earnestly to have your children live, or your wife, or your brother, or your friends, is it in your own power? " No, it is not."

Will you then say that there is nothing independent, which is in your own power alone, and unalienable? See if you have anything of this sort. "I do not know." But consider it thus: can any one make you assent to a falsehood? " No one." In the matter of assent, then, you are unrestrained and unhindered. "Agreed." Well, and can any one compel you to exert your aims towards what you do not like? "He can. For when he threatens me with death, or fetters, he thus compels me." If, then, you were to despise dying or being fettered, would you any longer regard him? "No." Is despising death, then, an action in our power, or is it not? "It is." Is it therefore in your power also to exert your aims towards anything, or is it not? "Agreed that it is. But in whose power is my avoiding anything? " This, too, is in your own. "What then if, when I am exerting myself to walk, any one should restrain me? What part of you can he restrain? Can he restrain your assent? " No, but my body." Ay, as he may a stone. "Be it so. But still I cease to walk." And who claimed that walking was one of the actions that cannot be restrained? For I only said that your exerting yourself towards it could not be restrained. But wherever the body and its assistance are essential, you have already heard that nothing is in your power. "Be this, too, agreed." And can any one compel you to desire against your Will? "No one." Or to propose, or intend, or, in short, not to be beguiled by the appearances of things? "Nor this. But when I desire anything, he can restrain me from obtaining what I desire." If you desire anything that is truly within your reach, and that cannot be restrained, how can he restrain you? "By no means." And pray who claims that he who longs for what depends on another will be free from restraint?

"May I not long for health, then? " By no means; nor for anything else that depends on another; for what is not in your own power, either to procure or to preserve when you will, that belongs to another. Keep off not only your hands from it, but even more than these, your desires. Otherwise you have given yourself up as a slave; you have put your neck under the yoke, if you admire any of the things which are not your own, but which are subject and mortal, to which of them soever you are attached. " Is not my hand my own?" It is a part of you, but it is by nature clay, liable to restraint, to compulsion; a slave to everything stronger than itself. And why do I say, your hand? You ought to hold your whole body but as a useful ass, with a pack-saddle on, so long as may be, so long as it is allowed you. But if there should come a military conscription, and a soldier should lay hold on it, let it go. Do not resist, or murmur; otherwise you will be first beaten and lose the ass after all. And since you are thus to regard even the body itself, think what remains to do concerning things to be provided for the sake of the body. If that be an ass, the rest are but bridles, pack-saddles, shoes, oats, hay for him. Let these go too. Quit them yet more easily and expeditiously. And when you are thus prepared and trained to distinguish what belongs to others from your own; what is liable to restraint from what is not; to esteem the one your own property, but not the other; to keep your desire, to keep your aversion, carefully regulated by this point, -whom have you any longer to fear? " No one." For about what should you be afraid, - about what is your own, in which consists the essence of good and evil? And who has any power over this? Who can take it away? Who can hinder you, any more than God can be hindered? But are you afraid for body, for possessions, for what belongs to others, for what is nothing to you? And what have you been studying all this while, but to distinguish between your own and that which is not your own; what is in your power and what is not in your power; what is liable to restraint and what is not? And for what purpose have you applied to the philosophers, - that you might nevertheless be disappointed and unfortunate? No doubt you will be exempt from fear and perturbation! And what is grief to you? For whatsoever we anticipate with fear, we endure with grief. And for what will you any longer passionately wish? For you have acquired a temperate and steady desire of things dependent on will, since they are accessible and desirable; and you have no desire of things uncontrollable by will. so as to leave room for that irrational, and impetuous, and precipitate passion.

Since then you are thus affected with regard to things, what man can any longer be formidable to you? What has man that he can be formidable to man, either in appearance, or speech, or mutual intercourse? No more than horse to horse, or dog to dog, or bee to bee. But things are formidable to every one, and whenever any person can either give these to another, or take them away, he becomes formidable too. "How, then, is this citadel to be destroyed?" Not by sword or fire, but by principle. For if we should demolish the visible citadel, shall we have demolished also that of some fever, of some fair woman,-in short, the citadel [of temptation] within ourselves; and have turned out the tyrants to whom we are subject upon all occasions and every day, sometimes the same, sometimes others? From hence we must begin; hence demolish the citadel, and turn out the tyrants, -give up body, members, riches, power, fame, magistracies, honors, children, brothers, friends; esteem all these as belonging to others. And if the tyrants be turned out from hence, why should I also demolish the external citadel, at least on my own account? For what harm to me from its standing? Why should I turn out the guards? For in what point do they affect me? It is against others that they direct their fasces, their staves, and their swords. Have I ever been restrained from what I willed, or compelled against my will? Indeed, how is this possible? I have placed my pursuits under the direction of God. Is it his will that I should have a fever? It is my will too. Is it his will that I should pursue anything? It is my will too. Is it his will that I should desire? It is my will too. Is it his will that I should obtain anything? It is mine too. Is it not his will? It is not mine. Is it his will that I should be tortured? Then it is my will to be tortured. Is it his will that I should die? Then it is my will to die. Who can any longer restrain or compel me, contrary to my own opinion? No more than Zeus.

It is thus that cautious travellers act. Does some one hear that the road is beset by robbers? He does not set out alone, but waits for the retinue of an ambassador or quaestor or proconsul, and when he has joined himself to their company, goes along in safety. Thus does the prudent man act in the world. There are many robberies, tyrants, storms, distresses, losses of things most dear. Where is there any refuge? How can he go alone unattacked? What retinue can he wait for, to go safely through his journey? To what company shall he join himself, -to some rich man; to some consular senator? And what good will that do me? He may be robbed himself, groaning and lamenting. And what if my fellow-traveller himself should turn against me and rob me? What shall I do? I say I will be the friend of Caesar. While I am his companion, no one will injure me, Yet before I can become illustrious enough for this, what must I bear and suffer ! How often, and by how many, must I be robbed ! And then, if I do become the friend of Caesar, he too is mortal; and if, by any accident, he should become my enemy, where can I best retreat, -to a desert? Well, and may not a fever come there? What can be done, then? Is it not possible to find a fellow-traveller safe, faithful, brave, incapable of being surprised? A person who reasons thus, understands and considers that if he joins himself to God, he shall go safely through his journey.

"How do you mean, join himself? " That whatever is the will of God may be his will too; that whatever is not the will of God may not be his. "How, then, can this be done?" Why, how otherwise than by considering the workings of God's power and his administration? What has he given me to be my own, and independent? What has he reserved to himself? He has given me whatever depends on will. The things within my power he has made incapable of hindrance or restraint. Bat how could he make a body of clay incapable of hindrance? Therefore he has subjected possessions, furniture, house, children, wife, to the revolutions of the universe. Why, then, do I fight against God? Why do I will to retain that which depends not on will; that which is not granted absolutely, but how, - in such a manner and for such a time as was thought proper? But he who gave takes away. Why, then, do I resist? Besides being a fool, in contending with a stronger than my self, I shall be unjust, which is a more important consideration. For whence had I these things, when I came into the world? My father gave them to me. And who gave them to him? And who made the sun; who the fruits; who the seasons; who their connection and relations with each other? And after you have received all, and even your very self, from another, are you angry with the giver, and do you complain, if he takes anything away from you? Who are you; and for what purpose did you come? Was it not he who brought you here? Was it not he who showed you the light? Hath not he given you companions? Hath not he given you senses? Hath not he given you reason? And as whom did he bring you here? Was it not as a mortal? Was it not as one to live with a little portion of flesh upon earth, and to see his administration; to behold the spectacle with him, and partake of the festival for a short time? After having beheld the spectacle and the solemnity, then, as long as it is permitted you, will you not depart when he leads you out, adoring and thankful for what you have heard and seen? "No; but I would enjoy the feast still longer." So would the initiated [in the mysteries], too, be longer in their initiation; so, perhaps, would the spectators at Olympia see more combatants. But the solemnity is over. Go away. Depart like a grateful and modest person; make room for others. Others, too, must be born as you were; and when they are born must have a place, and habitations, and necessaries. But if the first do not give way, what room is there left? Why are you insatiable, unconscionable? Why do you crowd the world?

"Ay, but I would have my wife and children with me too." Why, are they yours? Are they not the Giver's? Are they not his who made you also? Will you not then quit what belongs to another? Will you not yield to your Superior? "Why, then, did he bring me into the world upon these conditions?" Well, if it is not worth your while, depart. He has no need of a discontented spectator. He wants such as will share the festival; make part of the chorus; who will extol, applaud, celebrate the solemnity. He will not be displeased to see the wretched and fearful dismissed from it. For when they were present they did not behave as at a festival, nor fill a proper place, but lamented, found fault with the Deity, with their fortune, with their companions. They were insensible both of their advantages and of the powers which they received for far different purposes, - the powers of magnanimity, nobleness of spirit, fortitude, and that which now concerns us, freedom. "For what purpose, then, have I received these things?" To use them. "How long?" As long as he who lent them pleases. If, then, they are not necessary, do not make an idol of them, and they will not be so; do not tell yourself that they are necessary, when they are not.

This should be our study from morning till night beginning with the least and frailest things, as with earthenware, with glassware. Afterwards proceed to a suit of clothes, a dog, a horse, an estate; thence to yourself, body, members, children, wife, brothers. Look everywhere around you, and be able to detach yourself from these things. Correct your principles. Permit nothing to cleave to you that is not your own; nothing to grow to you that may give you agony when it is torn away. And say, when you are daily training yourself as you do here, not that you act the philosopher, which may be a presumptuous claim, but that you are asserting your freedom. For this is true freedom. This is the freedom that Diogenes gained from Antisthenes, and declared it was impossible that he should ever after be a slave to any one. Hence, when he was taken prisoner, how did he treat the pirates? Did he call any of them master? I do not mean the name, for I am not afraid of a word, but of the disposition from whence the word proceeds. How did he reprove them for feeding their prisoners ill? How was he sold? Did he seek a master? No, but a slave. And when he was sold, how did he converse with his lord? He immediately disputed with him whether he ought to be dressed or shaved in the manner he was; and how he ought to bring up his children. And where is the wonder? For if the same master had bought some one to instruct his children in gymnastic exercises, would he in those exercises have treated him as a servant or as a master? And so if he had bought a physician or an architect. In every department the skilful must necessarily be superior to the unskilful. What else, then, can he be but master, who possesses the universal knowledge of life? For who is master in a ship? The pilot. Why? Because whoever disobeys him is a loser. "But a master can put me in chains." Can he do it, then, without being a loser? "I think not, indeed." But because he must be a loser, he evidently must not do it; for no one acts unjustly without being a loser. "And how does he suffer, who puts his own slave in chains?" What think you? From the very fact of chaining him. This you yourself must grant, if you would hold to the doctrine that man is not naturally a wild, but a gentle, animal. For when is it that a vine is in a bad condition? "When it is in a condition contrary to its nature." How is it with a cock? "The same." It is therefore the same with a man also. What is his nature, -to bite and kick and throw into prison and cut off heads? No, but to do good, to assist, to indulge the wishes of others. Whether you will or not, then, he is in a bad condition whenever he acts unreasonably. "And so was not Socrates in a bad condition? " No, but his judges and accusers. " Nor Helvidius, at Rome? " No, but his murderer. " How do you talk?" Why, just as you do. You do not call that cock in a bad condition which is victorious, and yet wounded; but that which is conquered and comes off unhurt. Nor do you call a dog happy which neither hunts nor toils; but when you see him perspiring, and distressed, and panting with the chase. In what do we talk paradoxes? If we say that the evil of everything consists in what is contrary to its nature, is this a paradox? Do you not say it with regard to other things? Why, therefore, in the case of man alone, do you take a different view? But further, it is no paradox to say that by nature man is gentle and social and faithful. "This is none." How then [is it a paradox to say] that, when he is whipped, or imprisoned, or beheaded, he is not hurt? If he suffers nobly, does he not come off even the better and a gainer? But he is the person hurt who suffers the most miserable and shameful evils; who, instead of a man, becomes a wolf, a viper, or a hornet.

Come, then; let us recapitulate what has been granted. The man who is unrestrained, who has all things in his power as he wills, is free; but he who may be restrained or compelled or hindered, or thrown into any condition against his will, is a slave. "And who is unrestrained? " He who desires none of those things that belong to others. "And what are those things which belong to others?" Those which are not in our own power, either to have or not to have; or to have them thus or so. Body, therefore, belongs to another; its parts to another; property to another. If, then, you attach yourself to any of these as your own, you will be punished as he deserves who desires what belongs to others. This is the way that leads to freedom, this the only deliverance from slavery, to be able at length to say, from the bottom of one's soul,-

But what say you, philosopher? A tyrant calls upon you to speak something unbecoming you. Will you say it, or will you not? "Stay, let me consider." Would you consider now? And what did you use to consider when you were in the schools? Did you not study what things were good and evil, and what indifferent? "I did." Well, and what were the opinions which pleased us? "That just and fair actions were good; unjust and base ones, evil." Is living a good? "No." Dying, an evil? "No." A prison? "No." And what did a mean and dishonest speech, the betraying a friend, or the flattering a tyrant, appear to us? "Evils." Why, then, are you still considering, and have not already considered and come to a resolution? For what sort of a consideration is this: "Whether I ought, when it is in my power, to procure myself the greatest good, instead of procuring myself the greatest evil." A fine and necessary consideration, truly, and deserving mighty deliberation ! Why do you trifle with us, man? No one ever needed to consider any such point; nor, if you really imagined things fair and honest to be good, things base and dishonest to be evil, and all other things indifferent, would you ever be in such a perplexity as this, or near it; but you would presently be able to distinguish by your understanding as you do by your sight. For do you ever have to consider whether black is white, or whether light is heavy? Do you not follow the plain evidence of your senses? Why, then, do you say that you are now considering whether things indifferent are to be avoided, rather than evils? The truth is, you have no principles; for things indifferent do not impress you as such, but as the greatest evils; and these last, on the other hand, as things of no importance.

For thus has been your practice from the first. "Where am I? If I am in the school and there is an audience, I talk as the philosophers do; but if I am out of the school, then away with this stuff that belongs only to scholars and fools." This man is accused by the testimony of a philosopher, his friend; this philosopher turns parasite; another hires himself out for money; a third does that in the very senate. When one is not governed by appearances, then his principles speak for themselves. You are a poor cold lump of prejudice, consisting of mere phrases, on which you hang as by a hair. You should preserve yourself firm and practical, remembering that you are to deal with real things. In what manner do you hear, - I will not say that your child is dead, for how could you possibly bear that?- but that your oil is spilled, your wine consumed? Would that some one, while you are bawling, would only say this: "Philosopher, you talk quite otherwise when in the schools. Why do you deceive us? Why, when you are a worm, do you call yourself a man? " I should be glad to be near one of these philosophers while he is revelling in debauchery, that I might see how he demeans himself, and what sayings he utters; whether he remembers the title he bears and the discourses which he hears, or speaks, or reads.

"And what is all this to freedom?" It lies in nothing else than this, - whether you rich people approve or not. "And who affords evidence of this? " Who but yourselves? You who have a powerful master, and live by his motion and nod, and faint away if he does but look sternly upon you, who pay your court to old men and old women, and say, " I cannot do this or that, it is not in my power." Why is it not in your power? Did you not just now contradict me, and say you were free? " But Aprylla has forbidden me." Speak the truth, then, slave, and do not run away from your masters nor deny them, nor dare to assert your freedom, when you have so many proofs of your slavery. One might indeed find some excuse for a person compelled by love to do something contrary to his opinion, even when at the same time he sees what is best without having resolution enough to follow it, since he is withheld by something overpowering, and in some measure divine. But who can bear with you, who are in love with old men and old women, and perform menial offices for them, and bribe them with presents, and wait upon them like a slave when they are sick; at the same time wishing they may die, and inquiring of the physician whether their distemper be yet mortal? And again, when for these great and venerable magistracies and honors you kiss the hands of the slaves of others; so that you are the slave of those who are not free themselves ! And then you walk about in state, a praetor or a consul. Do I not know how you came to be praetor; whence you received the consulship; who gave it to you? For my own part, I would not even live, if I must live by Felicio's means, and bear his pride and slavish insolence. For I know what a slave is, blinded by what he thinks good fortune.

" Are you free yourself, then? " you may ask. By Heaven, I wish and pray for it. But I own I cannot yet face my masters. I still pay a regard to my body, and set a great value on keeping it whole; though, for that matter, it is not whole. But I can show you one who was free, that you may no longer seek an example. Diogenes was free. " How so?" Not because he was of free parents, for he was not; but because he was so in himself; because he had cast away all which gives a handle to slavery; nor was there any way of getting at him, nor anywhere to lay hold on him, to enslave him. Everything sat loose upon him; everything only just hung on. If you took hold on his possessions, he would rather let them go than follow you for them; if on his leg, he let go his leg; if his body, he let go his body; acquaintance, friends, country, just the same. For he knew whence he had them, and from whom, and upon what conditions he received them. But he would never have forsaken his true parents, the gods, and his real country [the universe]; nor have suffered any one to be more dutiful and obedient to them than he; nor would any one have died more readily for his country than he. He never had to inquire whether he should act for the good of the whole universe; for he remembered that everything that exists belongs to that administration, and is commanded by its ruler. Accordingly, see what he himself says and writes. "Upon this account," said he, "O Diogenes, it is in your power to converse as you will with the Persian monarch and with Archidamus, king of the Lacedemonians." Was it because he was born of free parents? Or was it because they were descended from slaves, that all the Athenians, and all the Lacedemonians, and Corinthians, could not converse with them as they pleased; but feared and paid court to them? Why then is it in your power, Diogenes? "Because I do not esteem this poor body as my own. Because I want nothing. Because this and nothing else is a law to me." These were the things that enabled him to be free.

And that you may not urge that I show you the example of a man clear of incumbrances, without a wife or children or country or friends or relations, to bend and draw him aside, take Socrates, and consider him, who had a wife and children, but held them not as his own; had a country, friends, relations, but held them only so long as it was proper, and in the manner that was proper; submitting all these to the law and to the obedience due to it. Hence, when it was proper to fight, he was the first to go out, and exposed himself to danger without the least reserve. But when he was sent by the thirty tyrants to apprehend Leon, because he esteemed it a base action, he did not even deliberate about it; though he knew that, perhaps, he might die for it. But what did that signify to him? For it was something else that he wanted to preserve, not his mere flesh; but his fidelity, his honor, free from attack or subjection. And afterwards, when he was to make a defence for his life, does he behave like one having children, or a wife? No, but like a single man. And how does he behave, when required to drink the poison? When he might escape, and Crito would have him escape from prison for the sake of his children, what says he? Does he esteem it a fortunate opportunity? How should he? But he considers what is becoming, and neither sees nor regards anything else. " For I am not desirous," he says, " to preserve this pitiful body; but that part which is improved and preserved by justice, and impaired and destroyed by injustice." Socrates is not to be basely preserved. He who refused to vote for what the Athenians commanded; he who contemned the thirty tyrants; he who held such discourses on virtue and moral beauty, - such a man is not to be preserved by a base action, but is preserved by dying, instead of running away. For even a good actor is preserved as such by leaving off when he ought; not by going on to act beyond his time. " What then will become of your children? " “If I had gone away into Thessaly, you would have taken care of them; and will there be no one to take care of them when I am departed to Hades?” Plato, Crito, i. 5. You see how he ridicules and plays with death. But if it had been you or I, we should presently have proved by philosophical arguments that those who act unjustly are to be repaid in their own way; and should have added, "If I escape I shall be of use to many; if I die, to none." Nay, if it had been necessary, we should have crept through a mouse-hole to get away. But how should we have been of use to any? Where must they have dwelt? If we were useful alive, should we not be of still more use to mankind by dying when we ought and as we ought? And now the remembrance of the death of Socrates is not less, but even more useful to the world than that of the things which he did and said when alive.

Study these points, these principles, these discourses; contemplate these examples if you would be free, if you desire the thing in proportion to its value.And where is the wonder that you should purchase so good a thing at the price of other things, be they never so many and so great? Some hang themselves, others break their necks, and sometimes even whole cities have been destroyed for that which is reputed freedom; and will not you for the sake of the true and secure and inviolable freedom, repay God what he hath given when he demands it? Will you not study not only, as Plato says, how to die, but how to be tortured and banished and scourged; and, in short, how to give up all that belongs to others? If not, you will be a slave among slaves, though you were ten thousand times a consul; and even though you should rise to the palace, you will never be the less so. And you will feel that, though philosophers (as Cleanthes says) do, perhaps, talk contrary to common opinion, yet it is not contrary to reason. For you will find it true, in fact, that the things that are eagerly followed and admired are of no use to those who have gained them; while they who have not yet gained them imagine that, if they are acquired, every good will come along with them; and then, when they are acquired, there is the same feverishness, the same agitation, the same nausea, and the same desire for what is absent. For freedom is not procured by a full enjoyment of what is desired, but by controlling the desire. And in order to know that this is true, take the same pains about these which you have taken about other things. Hold vigils to acquire a set of principles that will make you free. Instead of a rich old man, pay your court to a philosopher. Be seen about his doors. You will not get any disgrace by being seen there. You will not return empty or unprofited if you go as you ought. However, try at least. The trial is not dishonorable.